Insurance Co. of North America v. O'Keeffe

Fifth Circuit

Insurance Co. of North America v. O'Keeffe

368 F.2d 341

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 27, 1966

DocketNo. 22775

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 368 F.2d 341 (Insurance Co. of North America v. O'Keeffe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Insurance Co. of North America v. O'Keeffe, 368 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal arises under the provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended. 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq. The employee whose claim is the basis of the controversy suffered a back injury on October 9, 1961 when appellant insurance company was the insurance carrier for the employer. The issue before the Deputy Commissioner was whether the employee had sustained a new back injury on June 7, 1963 when the employer was covered by another insurance company. The case thus presented was a contest between the two insurance carriers.

The Deputy Commissioner found that no accident occurred on June- 7, 1963 within the meaning of the Act which caused or materially aggravated the employee’s disability. On the contrary, he found that the 1961 accident with its natural consequences, including surgery and alterations in gait and posture, was the sole responsible cause of the disability in question. This was the sole issue before the Deputy Commissioner, and on the appeal to the District Court.

The District Court entered summary judgment for the appellee upon a review of the record made on the administrative hearing. We affirm. The record supports the findings that the employee’s disability was attributable to his 1961 injury without the subsequent intervention of any new accident in 1963. The findings are neither unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole or irrational. O’Keefe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc., 1965, 380 U.S. 359, 85 S.Ct. 1012, 13 L.Ed.2d 895; O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 1951, 340 U.S. 504, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed. 483. The findings were not forbidden by the law, and the choice of the Deputy Commissioner as to the inference to be drawn from the basic facts have “ * * * substantial roots in the evidence * * * Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 1947, 330 U.S. 469, 67 S.Ct. 801, 91 L.Ed. 1028.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This appeal arises under the provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended. 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq. The employee whose claim is the basis of the controversy suffered a back injury on October 9, 1961 when appellant insurance company was the insurance carrier for the employer. The issue before the Deputy Commissioner was whether the employee had sustained a new back injury on June 7, 1963 when the employer was covered by another insurance company. The case thus presented was a contest between the two insurance carriers.

The Deputy Commissioner found that no accident occurred on June- 7, 1963 within the meaning of the Act which caused or materially aggravated the employee’s disability. On the contrary, he found that the 1961 accident with its natural consequences, including surgery and alterations in gait and posture, was the sole responsible cause of the disability in question. This was the sole issue before the Deputy Commissioner, and on the appeal to the District Court.

The District Court entered summary judgment for the appellee upon a review of the record made on the administrative hearing. We affirm. The record supports the findings that the employee’s disability was attributable to his 1961 injury without the subsequent intervention of any new accident in 1963. The findings are neither unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole or irrational. O’Keefe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc., 1965, 380 U.S. 359, 85 S.Ct. 1012, 13 L.Ed.2d 895; O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 1951, 340 U.S. 504, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed. 483. The findings were not forbidden by the law, and the choice of the Deputy Commissioner as to the inference to be drawn from the basic facts have “ * * * substantial roots in the evidence * * * Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 1947, 330 U.S. 469, 67 S.Ct. 801, 91 L.Ed. 1028.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 F.2d 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/insurance-co-of-north-america-v-okeeffe-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack